Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

Feb 4, 2013

Projects like Crime stoppers and neighbourhood watch
have been useful in the past to prevent and investigate criminal activities.
Noticing the effectiveness of such schemes, governments have been anxious to
expand the scope of them into dealing with thought crime and anti social
activities.Roxon’s proposed anti
discrimination laws are an example of this type of thinking.

Victoria, like Queensland has a neighbourhood snitch
program under which busybodies, self righteous twats, and even those who want
to get even with neighbours, are empowered to report litterers to the local
commissar and give the EPA the authority to issue fines based on public
reports. For showing such intense public spirit, they can have the satisfaction
of seeing their enemies fined.

Ms Withiel
has proof she was two suburbs away from George St in Wantirna South where she
was supposedly spotted littering on Boxing Day.

The Monash
University honours student has a receipt from an electronics store in Brandon
Park Shopping Centre in Wheelers Hill, time-stamped 14 minutes after the time
stated on the $141 EPA fine she received.She also has bank accounts proving the transaction, and has signed a
statutory declaration for both.

Ms Withiel
said she and her friend, in the car with her at the time, were at the shopping
centre all day at the Boxing Day sales.Ms Withiel said it was impossible for them to have driven to the busy shopping
centre, found parking, bought a coffee, browsed through an electronic store and
bought a video game - all in 14 minutes.

She is
contesting the fine, which she says shows ordinary people have too much power
in dobbing in motorists, with not enough proof required before a fine was
issued. …

… EPA
spokeswoman Tanya O'Shea said fined motorists needed to prove their innocence
to the EPA - not the EPA to prove their guilt.

While
littering is a problem, the idea that someone can be fined with no evidentiary
requirement other than a complaint from a member of the public is an
outrage.For an accused person to
be required to prove innocence is the direct opposite of what is considered due
process in civilized countries.

There are
numerous occasions in everybody’s lives when they are alone or unrecognized
somewhere without witnesses and not doing something that leaves proof of being
there. Ms Withiel is fortunate to have some evidence of her whereabouts around
the time her enemy reported her.

With the
government doubling the fines imposed, this should really spice up those
neighborhood disputes.